Davids Medienkritik

The Washington Post: "Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout"

The Washington Post is hardly one of America's more conservative publications. So it was highly interesting to read the newspaper's take on Gerhard Schroeder's new Russian pipeline job in the editorial section yesterday. Here are excerpts of the piece, entitled "Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout":

"IT'S THE SORT of behavior we have -- sadly -- come to expect from some in Congress. But when Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, announced last week that he was going to work for Gazprom, the Russian energy behemoth, he catapulted himself into a different league. It's one thing for a legislator to resign his job, leave his committee chairmanship and go to work for a company over whose industry he once had jurisdiction. It's quite another thing when the chancellor of Germany -- one of the world's largest economies -- leaves his job and goes to work for a company controlled by the Russian government that is helping to build a Baltic Sea gas pipeline that he championed while in office. To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste. (...)

On a broader level, Mr. Schroeder's decision to swap his job with the German government for a job funded by the Russian government should raise questions for German voters about their country's relationship with Russia. During his seven years as chancellor, Mr. Schroeder went out of his way to ignore the gradual suppression of political rights in Russia and to play down the significance of Russia's horrific war in Chechnya. Throughout his term in office, Mr. Schroeder thwarted attempts to put unified Western pressure on Russia to change its behavior. We can only hope that Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel, uses this extraordinary announcement as a reason to launch a new German policy toward Russia, one based on something other than Mr. Schroeder's private interests."

Read the entire thing. This is truly amazing. Remember how Schroeder was always looking out for the "little-guy" in Germany? Remember how he was always the champion of "social justice." Remember how he always demanded other Germans show solidarity with the poor and unemployed. And then he can't even wait one month after losing the Chancellery to take a cushy, lucrative job representing the wealthy stockholders of a Russian gas pipeline company that he helped to promote while in office? The fact that the company is run by a former East German secret police officer who was close to Putin in his KGB years is truly disgusting.

And the German media is still showing more interest in Tookie Williams and the so-called CIA scandal than this. Schroeder's actions represent a true scandal of massive proportions. But his left-wing friends are afraid to dig too deep and hurt their own party. Could you imagine how the German (and American) media elite would react if Bush did something like this? We would be hearing about it for years. It would be Watergate times 10 or more!

UPDATE: For the second day in a row a scathing editorial on Gerhard Schroeder and the Russians appeared on the Washington Post's editorial page. This time it was an article by Anne Applebaum entitled: "What Are the Russians Buying?" Here is an excerpt of that:

"Even here in Washington -- a city populated by lobbyists who once held political office and government officials who once worked as lobbyists -- it's hard to top the story of Gerhard Schroeder. Last week the former German chancellor announced that he'd accepted a job offer from Gazprom, the state-controlled Russian energy mega-company. As one of his last acts in office, Schroeder signed an agreement to build a diplomatically and environmentally controversial Baltic Sea gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Now he's working for the company that will build it. It's as if Jimmy Carter had negotiated the return of the Panama Canal to Panama -- and then signed a lucrative contract to manage the shipping lanes.

But there's more here than just the former German chancellor's quest for personal enrichment -- or funds to pay alimony to his three ex-wives. The story also reflects the growing international power of Russian money."

Read the entire article here.

Igniting Moral Outrage: Berlin Washington Post Correspondent at Work

On the topic of alleged CIA renditions and torture prisons I fully agree with beimami who comments:

One should keep in mind here that everything that has been hysterically reported by the German media about CIA torture camps and complicity by German officials has yet to be proven. If I remember correctly, one such reported camp in Kosovo already turned out to be a false alarm. I suspect the whole story will eventually more or less fizzle out. Maybe a few questionable detentions and some international cooperation that the former German government kept quiet so as not to incite its rather excitable base.

The German media these days report hearsay as facts - and, of course, all to the disadvantage of the American government and in particular the CIA.

Allegations in liberal U.S. media outlets such as the New York Times or the Washington Post are eagerly quoted in the German media as objective truth. It is interesting to note how even correspondents of American newspapers in Germany try to ignite the outrage. By chance I came across this transcript of a press roundtable with assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, Daniel Fried, at the U.S. embassy in Berlin on November 14. 

Craig Whitlock, Berlin correspondent of the Washington Post, questions Fried on the topic of the war against terrorism. His wording indicates that he wants to spread the gospel of illegal activities of the U.S. government:

Question: Ambassador Fried, my name's Craig Whitlock, with the Washington Post here in Berlin. I want to follow up on some of your comments about terrorism. As you may

The Role of France and Germany in Iraq

This article (registration required) by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan in the Washington Post hails the early return of Iraqi sovereignty and questions the role of France and Germany.

The Allies Must Step Up

(...) France and Germany demanded a significant U.N. role, and they've gotten it. They demanded a rapid turnover of sovereignty to the Iraqis, and they got that, too. With the two countries having gotten their way in the negotiations on the resolution, the time has come for them to pitch in and join in the effort to build a peaceful, stable, democratic future for Iraq. After all, French, German and other European officials have insisted all along that the success or failure of Iraq is as much a vital interest for them as for the United States. They've also insisted, understandably, that if the United States wanted their help, it would have to give them a say over policy in Iraq.

Unfortunately, now that the Bush administration has finally acquiesced to their requests, it appears that France and Germany are refusing to fulfill their end of the bargain. Leaders of both countries have declared they will not send troops to assist in Iraq under any circumstances. Still more troubling was French President Jacques Chirac's declaration at the Group of Eight summit last week that he opposed any NATO role in Iraq, even though the resolution France supported explicitly calls on "Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces."

The positions staked out by the French and German governments are an abdication of international responsibility. (...)

NATO officials, as well as some allied countries, argue that with the alliance already involved in Afghanistan, taking on Iraq as well is beyond the organization's capacity. But the truth is, if NATO cannot

Europe's Nuclear Culpability / Europas nukleare Verantwortung

(Deutsche Übersetzung: am Ende des Beitrags) What's Europe's culpability in nurturing a nuclear black market? The least one can say is that German technology is involved, as the Sueddeutsche Zeitung reports. And the Dutch based research facility Urenco is a major supplier of nuclear technology to Pakistan and Iran. Urenco is a joint development of Germany, the Netherlands and Great Britain, founded by their governments:

In the early 1970s the German, Dutch and British governments signed the Treaty of Almelo, an agreement under which the three partners would jointly develop the centrifuge process of uranium enrichment. Urenco Limited was established in 1971. ... Today, Urenco is truly a global supplier of enrichment services, delivering more than 13% of the worldwide enrichment requirements. ...

Why aren't the German media focussing more on the supply link between a European nuclear facility (sponsored by the governments of Germany, the Netherlands and Great Britain) and North Korea and Libya? There are clear indications for this link:

Two Dutch ministers said on Monday there were "indications" North Korea and Libya may have acquired potentially arms-related nuclear technology developed by British-Dutch-German consortium Urenco that Pakistan and Iran are known to possess.

And there seems to be a failure of the export-control system:

David Albright, a former IAEA inspector in Iraq who has closely tracked the Libyan investigation, said Libya's centrifuge supply network was similar to the one developed by Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s -- only much bigger. "The fact that Libya could go out and buy an entire centrifuge plant without anyone detecting it is startling," said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "It represents a failure of the export-control system, and most certainly a failure of intelligence."

Whose export-control system, and whose intelligence? A few European governments might need some explanation to do... I'm just glad, President Bush has a bold nuclear containment strategy!

Bush Surprises German Media / Bush überrascht deutsche Medien

(English translation at end of post)

Präsident Bushs Besuch in Bagdad hat die deutschen Medien völlig unvorbereitet getroffen. Normalerweise wissen unsere Journalisten von internationalen Besuchen und Auftritten Bushs weit im voraus; das erlaubt es ihnen, das deutsche Publikum durch Skepsis, Kritik und Häme rechtzeitig zu immunisieren.

Aber dieses Mal war alles anders: die Bilder vom Auftritt Bushs bei dem Thanksgiving-Essen amerikanischer Soldaten in Bagdad wurden zunächst praktisch unkommentiert dem deutschen Publikum präsentiert. Erste deutsche Medien-Reaktionen waren sogar von Respekt für einen gelungenen PR-Coup geprägt. Hier einige Passagen aus der Ansprache Bushs an die Soldaten:

"Ich war auf der Suche nach einem warmen Essen. Vielen Dank für die Einladung zum Dinner. ... Ich kenne keine bessere Gruppe von Leuten, mit denen ich das Thanksgiving Dinner haben könnte, als mit Euch. Heute versammeln sich überall Amerikaner mit ihren Familien und bedanken sich für das viele Glück in unserem Leben. Und dieses Jahr sind wir besonders dankbar für den Mut und die Opfer, die diejenigen erbringen, die uns verteidigen - die Männer und Frauen des Militärs der Vereinigten Staaten.

Ich bringe eine Botschaft im Auftrage Amerikas: Wir bedanken uns für Euren Dienst, wir sind stolz auf Euch, und Amerika steht fest hinter Euch. Wir haben gemeinsam einen Eid geleistet, unser Land zu verteidigen. Ihr haltet diesen Eid. Das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten macht einen großartigen Job. Ihr vernichtet die Terroristen hier im Irak, sodaß wir sie nicht im eigenen Land erleben. Ihr vernichtet die Verbrecher Saddams, sodaß die Menschen im Irak in Frieden und Freiheit leben können. ...

Jeder von Euch ist dem Ruf gefolgt, um in einen historischen Moment der Weltgeschichte teilzunehmen. ... Unser Militär hat die feinsten Menschen auf der Welt. Ich bin stolz, Euer Chef zu sein. Ich bringe Grüße von Amerika. Möge Gott Euch schützen." (eigene Übersetzung)

Spät nun berappeln sich - wie nach einem Niederschlag aufgrund einer harten Rechten - unsere Journalisten und würzen ihre Berichte und Kommentare über den Bagdad-Besuch Bushs mit den üblichen Unterstellungen und Herabsetzungen:

SPIEGEL ONLINE:

US-Verluste im Irak: Die unsichtbaren Toten Der Truthahn-Coup zu Thanksgiving in Bagdad ist George W. Bush gelungen. Doch die toten US-Soldaten im Irak werden für das Weiße Haus immer mehr zur Hypothek. Und wenn es um Verluste geht, ist der US-Präsident zu Hause ein Leisetreter.

Passauer Neue Presse

Der mächtigste Mann der Welt hat sich zu nächtlicher Stunde zu seinen Truppen in den Irak hinein und wieder heraus geschlichen, wie ein Fuchs in den Hühnerstall. Das sagt viel über die Fortschritte bei der Befriedung des Irak aus. Sieger, Befreier zumal, sehen anders aus.

Für die Iraker war der Trip des Präsidenten ohnehin ein Nicht-Besuch. ... Keines der drängenden Probleme des Landes ist bei dem Blitz-Besuch Bushs zur Sprache gekommen, geschweige denn einer Lösung näher gebracht worden. ... Bush hat den Irak mit seinem Besuch behandelt wie einen US-Flugzeugträger und damit die Iraker tief verletzt.

Deutsche Welle

Bushs Blitzbesuch in Bagdad Allein dass seit dem offiziellen Ende der Hauptkampfhandlungen Anfang Mai mehr als 180 US-Soldaten getötet wurden, zeigt: Die USA bekommen die Lage im Irak bislang definitiv nicht unter Kontrolle. Wohl inszenierte PR-Trips allein werden daran nichts ändern können.

Ich fürchte, die deutschen Medien kommen dieses Mal zu spät. Die Menschen haben die ungefilterte Nachricht des patriotischen Auftritts Bushs in Bagdad wohlwollend zur Kenntnis genommen. In den deutschen Redaktionsstuben wird man das Protokoll dieses Unfalls in der Kategorie "Da kann man nichts machen" ablegen müssen...

Nachtrag: Der irakische Blogger "The Mesopotamian" hat zum Bush-Besuch dies zu sagen:

"Obwohl der Besuch kurz war, war er sehr wichtig. Wir wissen, daß Sie nicht als Präsident einer Nation kommen, die uns überfällt, sondern als Freund, der sein Versprechen an unser Volk erneuert, und solange Ihre Absichten die sind, die Sie wiederholt genannt haben (und wir haben keinen Anlaß, an Ihrer Ernsthaftigkeit zu zweifeln), begrüßen das Land und die Herzen Sie.

Es schmerzt uns, daß der Besuch so kurz war, und daß die Massen unter den gegenwärtigen Umständen nicht herauskommen können, um Ihnen das Willkommen bereiten, das Sie verdienen, aber der Tag wird kommen, der Tag wird kommen (so Gott will). Ja, der Tag wird kommen, wenn Millionen herauskommen, um den besten Freund zu begrüßen, den das mesopotamische Volk je hatte."

Wirkt sehr fremd für deutsche Ohren und Augen, die nur die negative Irak-Berichterstattung deutscher Medien wahrnehmen. Ich dachte, die Iraker hassen alle George W. Bush...

Aussenminister Fischer besucht die USA,

Fr Jul 18, 09:13:29 AM
...und die deutschen Medien stehen stramm:

SPIEGEL: Fischer ist mit seiner Gut-Wetter-Tour zufrieden

FAZ: Fischer zieht positive Bilanz

Stern: Außenminister mit Visionen

Netzeitung: Fischer hofft auf transatlantische Verständigung

TAZ: Fischer gibt sich als Brückenbauer

usw., usw....

In den US-Medien findet der Besuch so gut wie überhaupt nicht statt. Der "Brückenbauer", der "Außenminister mit Visionen" - für ihn gibt es bei der New York Times nur ein paar Zeilen am Schluß eines Artikels über ein Treffen von Bush mit Annan. Die Washington Post erwähnt Fischers Besuch auf Seite A14, also recht weit hinten, in einer allgemeinen Übersicht über internationale Besuche der letzten Woche und weiß als zentrale Nachricht zu vermelden, daß Powell Fischer als Gastgeschenk eine Kiste leerer Bierflaschen überreichte. AP beschreibt die Substanz seines Besuches: "Describing the situation in Iraq as highly complicated, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said a trans-Atlantic debate was needed to develop a common strategy to deal with the postwar situation and other security issues." Dafür reist der Mann nach Washington!

Vermutlich hat Fischer bei der Produktion seiner nichtssagenden Stellungnahme die Stirn in die berühmten Denkerfalten gelegt, was bei deutschen Medien regelmäßig als Ausdruck tiefer staatspolitischer Verantwortung interpretiert wird. 

Angesichts der deutschen Jubelpresse können die herausragenden Popularitätswerte Fischers bei Bevölkerungsumfragen kaum verwundern...